The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-02-27

L
man who was interested in the subsi
dence, and the quick subsistence, of tn
panic, employed divers and Sundr,
vehicular conveyances to drive up ant
down, hither and thither, through tn,
crowd who we're standing and surginj
along in the neighborhood of tn,
financial establishment waiting to ge
their money. 1t was a good way tt
command silence.
In 1916 Congress passed this act, anC
III have no doubt that it is entirely
IsfamilIar to the mind Of the membe
from Georgia who has charge of thi
conference report:
ANY Judge of the United States on the ap
plicatiOn of the district attorney, and being
satisfied by proof that the testimony of am
person is competent and will be necessary
on the trial of any criminal proceeding IL
which the United States are parties or art
interested, may compel such person to give
recOgnizance, with or without sureties, at hi!
discretion, to appear to testify therein; anC
for that purpose may issue warrant agalnS
such person, under his hand, with or with
out seal, directed to the marshal or any othel
officer authorized to execute process IL
behalf of the United States, to arrest anC
bring before him such person. If the person
so arrested neglects or refuses to give recOg
niZance in the manner required the Judge
may issue warrant of commitment against
him, and the officer shall convey him to the
prison mentioned therein.
Here in 1916 Congress intrusted this
extraordinary power of issuing war
rant of attachment against a recusant
witness TO the Judge, and to the judge OF
the court alone; and not only that, sir,
but they fixed about it all the safe
guards in favor of the personal liberty
of the citizen-that is, that due proof
should be made of the recusancy of the
witness before the warrant of attach
ment should issue, and that the power
to issue such extraordinary process
should be intrusted to the judge OF the
court alone.
II may be said that the Territorial
courts are not courts of the United
States within the meaning of the
statutes applicable to the latter. That,
as a proposition of law, is in general
correct. But this act of 1916 was drawn
after the decision in l Peters, United
States Supreme Court reports, January
term, 1873, and elsewhere, in which it
was held that Territorial courts were
not courts OF the Unittd States within
the meaning of the statutes, and 1t was
drawn with reference to this decision.
And you will observe that the language
of the act is guarded and aptly chosen
to meet these decisions: Amy judge of
the United States, whether in Terri
tory or in State of the Union, or in
the District of Columbia.
So that there stands now upon the
statute-books ample, complete, and
plenary power in the courts to arrest a
recusant witness and bring him before
the court.
Mr.. STEwART, of Vermont. That is if
you can catch him.
Mr.. BENNETT. You have to do that
either way. The man will run as fast
under one statute as another, will he
not?
Mr.. STEWART, of Vermont. Yes but
you catch him before he runs in the
one case; in the other you give him full
latitude.
Mr.. BENNETT. Now, my friend, l have
great respect for you. l bow to, you
with the same Difference that the Mus
sulman bows toward Mecca or the
heather to his god laughter on all
matters OF law or opinion. l look upon
you as the representation of the law,
and l say that in all candor. Now
listen and mark the obvious misappre-
henson of the existing law by the
member from Vermont Mr.. Stewart.
| read the law again at the risk of
tatiguing the House by the repetition:
Any judge of the United States
This is in any part of the United
States
on the application ola district attorney, and
on Delng satisfied by proof that the testi-
mony OF any person is competent
may compel such person to give recognize
ance with or without surety.
That Is to say, he may catch him
right then and there. 1t is not ueces-
sary to bait him or to take him to lick
log. Laughter. He may catch him
instantly and of heap.
The member from Vermont Mr.
Stewart shakes me when he challenges
any statement Of law 1 may make.
Laughter.
John Randolph said many years ago
that one OF the dangers of free govern
ment IN this country lay in the fact
that the people would surrender some
precious principle of liberty under tenn
porary excitement; their heads and
hands would become fevered. Gentle
men know that the violations of law of
the class aimed at in this bill occurring
in the Territory of Utah will remedy
themselves inevitable and unerringly
under the existing law, which is Just as
severe as any in the codes of modern
times. Society in Utah is undergoing
certain processes which work changes
for the better of themselves,
Great ideas and reforms travel
slowly, sometimes noiSelessly. like the
feet OF the gods shod in wool"
Society there II flushing itself.
Lest may be misapprehended in
respect of the law as stated a while ago,
L beg to say that this question, this pro.
position that the statutes OF the Tinted
States do net in general apply to the
courts of the Territories has been three
times decides by the Supreme Court of
me United States. This section S81,
Revised Statutes, was drawn with
xpress reference to the first decisions
made in these cases.
The next section of this conference
report IS as absolutely void, wan tried
by any justjudicial standard, as would
be the mandate of the gentleman who
preSideS over this House if he ordered
a member to fall down and worship
him; GIVE me your ears! Renewed
augh'er.
SEC 5. That the marshal of said Territory
u Utah, and his deputies, shall possess and
nay exercise all the powers in executing the
avs of the United States or of said Territory
N.ag x